It also means promoting a new ethic of responsibility. Part of the reason this crisis occurred is that everyone was living beyond their means - from Wall Street to Washington to even some on Main Street. CEOs got greedy. Politicians spent money they didn't have. Lenders tricked people into buying home they couldn't afford and some folks knew they couldn't afford them and bought them anyway.

We've lived through an era of easy money, in which we were allowed and even encouraged to spend without limits; to borrow instead of save.

That is the good bit. The rest of the speech is; "Here, have a shitload of public money."

Couldn't find that speech on Obama's website either btw. The plan seems to be, if you cant afford something then some one else will pay for it. That will never come back and bite us.

as I recall he actually wont specify what gets the cut. Apparently it's not going to be defense, energy subsidies, mortgage subsidies, education, healthcare, or any of the other main planks. I'm guessing there'll plenty of scaling back "due to hard times" once the horses are all in.

Also you know what? All those dumb fucks with mortgages they cant afford? And speculators with crazy overvalued properties? And mortgage co's with higher than predicted default rates? Fuck 'em. I dont want them to get one damn dime of mine. If responsible folks with zero debt (aka me) are going to get screwed those bitches better get it longer and harder than me first.

If those "stupid people" are screwed, you will be too. For example, if a bunch of people are made homeless all of a sudden, you're also going to see crime increase as a result. If a bunch of houses are foreclosed, you will see your home value drop drastically too. If the banks are stuck with a bunch of losses due to foreclosed houses (although their derivative markets, not housing, caused this financial crisis) they will be less likely to loan money, and as a result even those of us with good credit who make all of our payments will be able to get a loan for anything.

So, while I would agree that the stupid people should be punished somehow, we have to be careful about how we do it. This isn't a simple matter, but rather a complex system involving global markets, tied in with our retirements, our ability to buy new things, etc. We have to be careful about how we proceed. If it means giving up some of what we have in order to preserve a greater amount of it, we may have to make sacrifices. If it means giving idiots a pass, we may have to do it. It sucks, but we can't treat this problem with simple solutions that break more than they fix.

- - - - -That's what I always say about you, boz, you have a good memory for random facts about pussy. -- joh3n

I think you're right, but I would hope that someone who gives such speeches would be able to at least get a decent turnout from the non-idiots out there. I think Obama is the closest we've had to a politician who is honest with Americans in quite some time, but he's still far from ideal in that regard.

- - - - -That's what I always say about you, boz, you have a good memory for random facts about pussy. -- joh3n

Eh, I actually ahve a long reply, but heres the summary. Continuing to sbusidise risk and negligence sounds like a pretty bad plan. We need to stop, if not now, when?

Your home value is already depressed (though that shouldnt matter seeing as it's a long term investment right?) Homes losing another 20-25% sounds great to me. Maybe in a few years we'll actually be at a sustainable occupancy rate. Banks already have trouble lending. Your assets are already losing money. It looks like we're spending our way out, so theres more inflationary pressure on all your assets. I understand degrees here, but hand waving isnt actually an amount or reason.

Basically all this magic value has to go away somehow. I know I'm going to take a hit already. But all of the "stupid people" better run that gauntlet the same as me. Giving the loss holders, whether consumer or commercial, a pass at the expense of everyone else doesnt sound like fixing the situation. It sounds like enshrining a sweet combination of business risk subsidy and populist wealth redistribution ploy.

And as far as quoting "stupid people", I really dont see why. If you enter into a contract worth many times your annual income you better understand those complicated terms like "variable rate". And Im sure there were a few cases where someone certified to give financial advice done fucked up. And thats why they're probably bonded/insured against negligent actions.

Continuing to sbusidise risk and negligence sounds like a pretty bad plan. We need to stop, if not now, when?

I don't disagree, however, if we were to apply a metaphor, we need to apply the breaks and slow down in a controlled way rather than slamming into a tree after having gone off the road.

Your home value is already depressed (though that shouldnt matter seeing as it's a long term investment right?)

Actually no. I live in one of the few areas that haven't been hit by the real estate market.

Homes losing another 20-25% sounds great to me.

This would exacerbate the problem. Why should I continue paying my mortgage which is a lot more expensive than my house is worth? Sure, some drop can be reasonable and accounted for. Losing 1/4 of the value means that a lot of people, like me with steady jobs and always paying on time, will be walking away from their mortgages.

Maybe in a few years we'll actually be at a sustainable occupancy rate.

This would be good, except that in reality the rich will still continue to own mansions, and the middle class would drive the poor out of their homes as the middle class downgrades. This simply wouldn't work out well without a huge plan.

Your assets are already losing money. It looks like we're spending our way out, so theres more inflationary pressure on all your assets. I understand degrees here, but hand waving isnt actually an amount or reason.

My assets are losing money, but I can remake them if the economy is back on track. However, I think this points to the weakness in the idea of 401Ks and IRAs using the stock market as a retirement. Either companies should have pensions, or social security should be strongly beefed up to be able to provide 100% for people when they retire, using non-privatized methods of raising money.

Basically all this magic value has to go away somehow. I know I'm going to take a hit already. But all of the "stupid people" better run that gauntlet the same as me. Giving the loss holders, whether consumer or commercial, a pass at the expense of everyone else doesnt sound like fixing the situation. It sounds like enshrining a sweet combination of business risk subsidy and populist wealth redistribution ploy.

In a situation like this, we have no choice but some sort of redistribution of wealth. For the sake of the survival of the nations of the world, at least in something resembling their present forms, they had better look after the poor and middle class rather than just giving to the rich like these plans do. If not, things will get bad fast.

And as far as quoting "stupid people", I really dont see why. If you enter into a contract worth many times your annual income you better understand those complicated terms like "variable rate".

There were other factors. Everyone talks about the idiots that got too much house that they couldn't afford with a variable interest rate. What about the people who had a reasonable house and a fixed income rate, only to see their neighbors all screw up and make their house unsellable, then they lose their jobs? They are just as screwed, but didn't make bad decisions. What about the people who suddenly get cancer or some other major medical problem, lose their jobs, had to refinance their home last year in an unfavorable way to pay for their medical bills? You do realize that the majority of bankruptcies are due to medical expenses, right? I put quotes around stupid people because I don't know how many of them, once you hear the actual stories, really were stupid. I'll admit there were some, but I doubt it was the majority. The myth of the irresponsible (and often minority) home buyer sounds to me just a right-wing talking point much like the myth of the welfare queen. There is some reality inside of every myth, but I don't think that it's completely valid here. This holds especially true since the housing market is not what really caused the financial mess we are in anyway. The banks and investment companies caused this crisis. They are the ones that created the CDS market and other derivative markets that were worse gambles than going to Las Vegas. They are the ones that gambled with our money and their invented money that didn't really exist.- - - - -That's what I always say about you, boz, you have a good memory for random facts about pussy. -- joh3n

I'm underwhelmed, it has the format of the SoTU addresses we've been subjected to for the past how many decades? Instead of having an a rational account of what the problem actually is, why we got where we are and the basis on which it can be overcome, it's just a hodgepodge of throwing crap at the wall to see what sticks.There is no more degenerate kind of state than that in which the richest are supposed to be the best.Cicero, The Republic

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective companies. Comments and Stories are owned by the Poster and Licensed to "Hulver's site". See our Copyright page for more information.